Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.97B3541C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:17 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97B3541C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Enough of that, pleaaaaase Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 23:17:38 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 547 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97B3541C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, I get the feeling that some of misinterpret the purpose of this list. Discussion on this list should support the event of ltx3. More exactly the release of it before 2001 :-) So please be careful not to wander off in sometimes interesting but nevertheless totally irrelevant discussions. I know that this is difficult but please try. Unlike most of you I can't look into this list during my working hours but only = after 6pm or 7pm. When I need two hours to read to the use or non use of Lucida for math then I may have learned something new but lost some time to work on the new LaTeX. So please stop the discussions that hide behind `Re: magsteps' or `Re fontdef info' but have long lost any contact with the subject and return to the questions and problems that are relevant to the internal concepts of the new latex. Sebastian has summarized this nicely: > surely this whole discussion should be in two parts. > a) what should the syntax and facilities of \new@fontshape be? Frank > seems to have a handle on this, and it looks like being flexible > enough to handle both fixed sizes and scalable fonts. > b) what should the standard offerings of fontdef.tex (and the sizes > section of lfonts.tex) look like? > Forget b) because this is not relevant at this stage. An beside the main opinions have been offered already three times. But come back to a) if there is something new to say. Thanks again to Sebastian for his tests and his paper on it, that way we might be able to finish sooner (perhaps 1999?:-) Also relevant are in my opinion all the open questions on math font = handling. And finally the remark from Chris: > > So the crucial question is: > > Should (and can) the NFSS philosophy change to allow generic, rather = than > system-specific, fontdef files? > LaTeX viz plain TeX or `Do we care for all the other users' and do most of the people reading this discussion believe that everything can be done with latex: Dear Barbara, Phil, Rainer and who else contributed to this discussion, we all know each other and we all know our opinions of some of the topics raised. This kind of questions are important and often discussed during face to face conversations over many nights with good results but forget it on such a list. List discussions can never solve them if there are different opinions, but the aren't that different and you all know it. At least start a new subject so that I can file away the message until I have more time to read it. Its like the latex-beta testers who suddenly started to discuss general hyphenation problems instead of the (at that time) relevant question: are there some bugs in this new version. To finish with Sebastian's words: > This is nothing to do with LaTeX-L, so please forget I said this here. > cheers Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97B3541C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Enough of that, pleaaaaase

Folks,

I get the feeling that some of misinterpret the = purpose of this list.
Discussion on this list should support the event of = ltx3. More exactly
the release of it before 2001 :-) So please be = careful not to wander
off in sometimes interesting but nevertheless totally = irrelevant
discussions. I know that this is difficult but please = try. Unlike most
of you I can't look into this list during my working = hours but only after
6pm or 7pm. When I need two hours to read to the use = or non use of
Lucida for math then I may have learned something new = but lost some
time to work on the new LaTeX.

So please stop the discussions that hide behind `Re: = magsteps' or `Re
fontdef info' but have long lost any contact with the = subject and
return to the questions and problems that are = relevant to the internal
concepts of the new latex.

Sebastian has summarized this nicely:
> surely this whole discussion should be in two = parts.
>  a) what should the syntax and facilities = of \new@fontshape be? Frank
>     seems to have a handle = on this, and it looks like being flexible
>     enough to handle both = fixed sizes and scalable fonts.
>  b) what should the standard offerings of = fontdef.tex (and the sizes
>     section of lfonts.tex) = look like?
>

Forget b) because this is not relevant at this stage. = An beside the
main opinions have been offered already three times. = But come back to
a) if there is something new to say. Thanks again to = Sebastian for his
tests and his paper on it, that way we might be able = to finish sooner
(perhaps 1999?:-)

Also relevant are in my opinion all the open questions = on math font handling.

And finally the remark from Chris:
>
> So the crucial question is:
>
>   Should (and can) the NFSS philosophy = change to allow generic, rather than
>    system-specific, fontdef = files?
>



LaTeX viz plain TeX or `Do we care for all the other = users' and do
most of the people reading this discussion believe = that everything can
be done with latex:

Dear Barbara, Phil, Rainer and who else contributed to = this discussion,

we all know each other and we all know our opinions of = some of the
topics raised. This kind of questions are important = and often
discussed during face to face conversations over many = nights with good
results but forget it on such a list. List = discussions can never solve
them if there are different opinions, but the aren't = that different
and you all know it. At least start a new subject so = that I can file
away the message until I have more time to read = it.  Its like the
latex-beta testers who suddenly started to discuss = general hyphenation
problems instead of the (at that time) relevant = question: are there
some bugs in this new version.

To finish with Sebastian's  words:

> This is nothing to do with LaTeX-L, so please = forget I said this here.
>


cheers Frank


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97B3541C--